Ford Focus RS Forum banner

1 - 20 of 31 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
15,358 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
how.jpg

by Andrei Tutu, 30th October 2015

Ford may have swept us off our heel-and-toeing feet at the Geneva Motor Show back in March with the 2016 Focus RS, but the team had a greater challenge on its hands than it might have seemed at first.

With the car having been shown at the Swiss venue, the carmaker realized the engine was not quite up to the go-fast standard of their manic hatch. The 2.3-liter turbocharged four of the Mustang had to be massaged in order to be hardcore enough for the 2016 Focus RS.

Compared to the unit in the Mustang, the version used on the Focus features high tensile cast iron cylinder liners, a new compressor housing and turbocharger wheel, as well as a Cosworth-supplied cylinder head.

As a result, the 2.3-liter four-pot went from 310 hp and 300 lb-ft (407 Nm) to a considerably meatier 345 hp and 325 lb-ft (441 Nm) of twist, which are dialed all the way up to 347 lb-ft (470 Nm) when the Overboost spell is cast by the driver.

The process started soon after Geneva, with Ford Performance heading over to Sweden to blow some high-octane steam. First of all, the engine didn’t deliver the expected output.

And while the engineers were working to fix that, they thought they might as well gift the third-generation with a corresponding soundtrack. After all, the five-cylinder turbo mill of its predecessor came with one of the sweetest soundtracks in the hot hatch world.

In the process, Ford pitted the 2016 Focus RS prototypes against all members of the competition that matter. As a result, their ice and snow test convoy also included the Audi S3, BMW M135i, Volkswagen Golf R, Subaru Impreza WRX STI and the Mitsubishi Lancer Evo.

Now that the first passenger ride reviews are out, the Focus RS is looking like a memorable hot hatch, one that has the power to use its abilities for the kind of activities Ken Block gets paid for.

However, what we really want to see are the comparison tests. And given Ford’s efforts, we’re ready to bet on the RS, at least when it comes to the hooning factor competition.

How Ford Secretly Reinvented the Mustang?s EcoBoost after Not Meeting Focus RS Specs - Video - autoevolution
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
15,358 Posts
Discussion Starter #3

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,054 Posts
of the mentioned upgrades, which ones helped stop engines from blowing on the test bed? the failures must have been ringland, like seen a few times in the ST. no mention of pistons being changed at all. what gives?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,819 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,054 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
15,358 Posts
Discussion Starter #9

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,819 Posts
yeah that's true for the 2.0 and 2.3
I doubt they changed them because of it. Meeting their power goals with out the need to go Forged. I never got that though, making everything else Forged but always neglecting the pistons lol.

The question of failure still remains though as you stated. The way I see it you have one very odd modification and that is the liners. Why add stronger liners for a modest gain on power? I would assume the pistons would be changed over liners if they were the issue.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,054 Posts
I doubt they changed them because of it. Meeting their power goals with out the need to go Forged. I never got that though, making everything else Forged but always neglecting the pistons lol.

The question of failure still remains though as you stated. The way I see it you have one very odd modification and that is the liners. Why add stronger liners for a modest gain on power? I would assume the pistons would be changed over liners if they were the issue.
better liners resist heat transfer and pre ignition
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,441 Posts
better liners resist heat transfer and pre ignition
It's also possible they split a liner or had excessive wear in their torture testing.

Doing some research, this is interesting and perhaps indicates that Darton Sleeves was contracted by Ford to product the high-strength cylinder liners. Notice the 2nd entry hear specifically calls out both the 2.3L RS and 2.5L 5Cylinder. Does anyone know if there was an earlier RS with a 2.3? If not then this points even more strongly to Darton:

Darton Sleeves: FORD™ MID&#8482 Sleeves

Even if it is not posted on this page, the fact that Ford turned to Darton in the past makes a good case for them returning to the well for the current RS.

Jim
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
5,582 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,187 Posts
I'm very grateful that they attended to the initial power deficiencies of the 2.3, but I'm exponentially more grateful that Raj insisted on addressing the soundtrack deficiencies. It's all very well to have a performance car that will blow the doors off many others, but if it doesn't sound like one, then the thrill is diminished. I can't wait to wake up some pedestrians with a precision delivered pop out of the potato shooter...........:triumphant:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
306 Posts
yeah that's true for the 2.0 and 2.3


whaaa aat ??^ :suspicion:



Still not sure if you are on the right page. You do realize that a ringland is part of the piston, right..?

DSC00475.jpg




And that the Ford Rally Sport (continueing with tradition), has Cosworth Pistons and also a robust steel sleeve. It has been mentioned many times now. So, not sure what you are getting at, but you did mention and insinuate ringland failure a couple of times. I hope you understand now, and are done with your fearmongering.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,054 Posts
whaaa aat ??^ :suspicion:



Still not sure if you are on the right page. You do realize that a ringland is part of the piston, right..?

View attachment 5607




And that the Ford Rally Sport (continueing with tradition), has Cosworth Pistons and also a robust steel sleeve. It has been mentioned many times now. So, not sure what you are getting at, but you did mention and insinuate ringland failure a couple of times. I hope you understand now, and are done with your fearmongering.
you wanna give your source on that tid bit of info? i'm sure that's the first any one one this forum has heard that the 2.3 RS ecoboost has cosworth pistons. both the 2.0 and 2.3 have cast in steel ringlands, I don't know what you're trying to say. did you check out the blown motor resource thread on focusst.org? I really don't know what your deal is??? I have been on ST.org for three years, and engines have failed, most have lost the top of the piston right down to the cast in ringland, very few pistons have been window, maybe one squared bore. its not fearmongering. its fact. most were tuned but some were stock. most were fixed under warranty. let me ask you this, if an injector fails and leans a cylinder and it knocks until the top of the piston breaks off, does the engine still fail?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
306 Posts
Sorry, I misread, I meant Cosworth Head.

And there is still some debate how the pistons differ from the Mustang, let alone the ST. The point I am making is that you claim the ST uses the exact same intake and exhaust, and is configured exactly the same (injectors, fuel pump, turbo, cranks, etc..)... thus it will have the exact same results as the 2.0 liter... and using that leap of logic to fuel insecurities and fearmongering towards the 2.3 EB.


Head over to the Mustang world and you see little of what you are talking about. And don't seem to recognize that the 2.3 and 2.0 are indeed different. And you can hang out at the ST forums for 20 years, it won't matter... different engine.

The point being is that Ford sold how many 2.0 and 2.3 liter EB engines in the last 3 years..? And it seems you are trying to equate a few engine failures, to that of Subaru's rate, in defense of Subaru.



But funny how you keep going over to the ST forums and not the Mustang forums, for your 2.3 EB info.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,054 Posts
Sorry, I misread, I meant Cosworth Head.

And there is still some debate how the pistons differ from the Mustang, let alone the ST. The point I am making is that you claim the ST uses the exact same intake and exhaust, and is configured exactly the same (injectors, fuel pump, turbo, cranks, etc..)... thus it will have the exact same results as the 2.0 liter... and using that leap of logic to fuel insecurities and fearmongering towards the 2.3 EB.


Head over to the Mustang world and you see little of what you are talking about. And don't seem to recognize that the 2.3 and 2.0 are indeed different. And you can hang out at the ST forums for 20 years, it won't matter... different engine.

The point being is that Ford sold how many 2.0 and 2.3 liter EB engines in the last 3 years..? And it seems you are trying to equate a few engine failures, to that of Subaru's rate, in defense of Subaru.



But funny how you keep going over to the ST forums and not the Mustang forums, for your 2.3 EB info.
I never said they are exactly the same, only that they are essentially the same. the 2.0 is available in 203ps 245ps and 255ps, and the 2.3 in 280ps, 289ps, 310ps and 350ps. the ST and the RS both have engines tuned for higher specific output than less powerful models. I wonder how many 203ps escapes have blown motors. if I went over to the escape forum and only saw one blown motor would that be proof that the 2.0 st wont blow ever? these engines share the same block. same bore, the 2.3 is stroked 11mm. as far as fearmongering, I don't see it that way. if asking why the ford test engines failed and assuming that its ring land related because well, forged crank, forged rods, upgraded sleeves (over the mustang, and ST) upgraded head gasket, no mention of pistons :( the 1% of engines that will blow on this forum will be top of piston chipped down to ring land. http://www.focusst.org/forum/attachments/focus-st-maintenance/34988d1392783476-blown-motor-resource-thread-photo-4.jpg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,819 Posts
The other important piece of missing info along with what failed is what were they doing when it failed. The tests which these motors go through are absolutely insane and way more abusive then any one can be. Just because it wasn't up to Fords standards does not mean any one would have an issue. We can speculate all day long, the important thing though is that the engine is more robust then the EB Mustang 2.3. They are achieving slightly over 400WHP stock turbo with aux fuel. I'm not going to have the slightest worry about putting that much power in my RS. I think about the TQ my ST makes and how well it takes it, and honestly the ST isn't that special of an engine. The Mustang 2.3 is built better, and the RS's better then that. This also won't be an engine that will be neglected with support, they already have internals available :)

Now what about the upgrades to that Trans?
 
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
About this Discussion
30 Replies
11 Participants
w3rkn
Ford Focus RS Forum
FocusRS.org is the largest forum community to discuss the 2016+ Focus RS. Join to talk about performance, specs, reviews and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top